[talk-au] NSW school zone markings
Working on a Note referring to a school speed zone. Imagery shows this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-36.67254/149.84557 The yellow box says 40. Is that to indicate the start of the school zone, or is it just a general limit for that street? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Another highway classification question. This time in Adelaide.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 20:46, Alex Sims wrote: > I’m wondering more if the Australian tagging guidelines for metropolitan > trunk roads should stress more about a roads function and place in the > network, rather than it’s label (A/B/C). > I agree entirely that we need to work on urban roads, rather than just main roads. I had similar question a little while back when somebody has changed primary roads to trunk, which, knowing the roads in question, just doesn't seem right: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-December/015468.html Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Use of Perth Transport data?
Suggestion was made on a Note that we could check bus stop details via https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/About/Spatial-Data-Access. The Data Catalogue says " License not compatiable with ODbL & makes reference to a discussion a few years ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-February/011678.html Andrew H, you were going to contact them about it - any joy? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Another highway classification question. This time in Adelaide.
In terms of consistency with the rest of the roads in the Adelaide metropolitan area primary is correct. It seems to me to be better placed there according to the main (global) tagging guidelines. All of the trunk roads in Adelaide are of national/strategic important and carry a lot of freight. The same seems so of Melbourne. Looking at Sydney it seems to have a few too many, New Illawarra Road at Lucas Heights, trunk, really? I’m wondering more if the Australian tagging guidelines for metropolitan trunk roads should stress more about a roads function and place in the network, rather than it’s label (A/B/C). From: Andrew Davidson Date: Friday, 18 March 2022 at 7:16 pm Found another highway classification map note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2734030 This one asking if North Main Road should be classed trunk rather than primary. Do we have any Adelaidean mappers that could answer this question? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping easements
There are lots of different types of easements. Other than buried gas pipe lines there are; buried optical fiber lines over head power lines, and access tracks to them public roads through property (farms, State Forests, National Parks etc) private access through one or more properties to another private property old stock routes (the long paddock) .. these can be see on the DCS base map - e.g. Sturt National Park And probably more... The old stock routes cannot be 'seen on the ground'. Yet someone could insist on using it.. they would need permission from IIRC the stock board who usually imposes restrictions - start dates, minimum speed - where stops are made and for how long .. etc. Mapping what you see is fairly safe. Mapping an easement ... ? how wide is it? There would be lots of questions about it .. I'd stay away unless you have a formal source that can easily be checked. On 18/3/22 18:29, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote: Thanks for raising the issue, Graeme. I opened the issue but I have limited understanding of what an easement is in different jurisdiction. Ben makes a good point in that an easement can be considered as an absence of something else, so might not need to be mapped, more specifically a space in between plots that can be built. Maybe why there is so little of it mapped on OSM? Where the note points, I believe the reason it exists is access to the small bit of bushland and the creek, for emergency services for example. In that case, should it be tagged as a track rather than a footway? And what access tag should be used? Cheers On 18/3/22 15:29, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote: If there is no formed track (but vehicles do use it) then I would think that highway=track or path, surface=grass, visibility=no, low, etc. and access=private, otherwise landcover=grass would be fine in my opinion. OSM is not a town planning serves it, it does not contain zoning codes or laws so why should it contain easements? Further to this, easements are a lack of ground structure (due to an underground, overground, or planned utility/road), therefore not having anything mapped on top of them would not cause a problem (and the eagle eyed may think there is an easement there) Ben On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 10:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: A note had been raised concerning mapping a Council access easement: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2883145#map=19/-27.50901/153.03017 Suggestion was made that these should be leisure=nature_reserve as it is not to be developed on? I suggested that they're just highway=footway + surface=grass, possibly with access=private if so signposted e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538670878 Alternative suggestion was landuse=easement? Have just done some searching &, strangely, there are basically no easements in OSM! https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=easement The 13 "easements" are all in Australia for gas pipelines: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gXr, while the 28 "easement_filed" are all in Florida for power lines: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gXs The only other mentions of easements are in the wiki for US Public Lands: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands, together with a brief mention in Massachusetts: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation So, how would we like to map these areas? 3 alternatives would seem to be nature_reserve / landuse or highway? Any other suggestions / thoughts? What do we all think? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Stéphane Guillou http://stragu.gitlab.io/ You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is available on the keys.gnupg.net server. Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page:http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Another highway classification question. This time in Adelaide.
Found another highway classification map note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2734030 This one asking if North Main Road should be classed trunk rather than primary. Do we have any Adelaidean mappers that could answer this question? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping easements
Thanks for raising the issue, Graeme. I opened the issue but I have limited understanding of what an easement is in different jurisdiction. Ben makes a good point in that an easement can be considered as an absence of something else, so might not need to be mapped, more specifically a space in between plots that can be built. Maybe why there is so little of it mapped on OSM? Where the note points, I believe the reason it exists is access to the small bit of bushland and the creek, for emergency services for example. In that case, should it be tagged as a track rather than a footway? And what access tag should be used? Cheers On 18/3/22 15:29, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote: If there is no formed track (but vehicles do use it) then I would think that highway=track or path, surface=grass, visibility=no, low, etc. and access=private, otherwise landcover=grass would be fine in my opinion. OSM is not a town planning serves it, it does not contain zoning codes or laws so why should it contain easements? Further to this, easements are a lack of ground structure (due to an underground, overground, or planned utility/road), therefore not having anything mapped on top of them would not cause a problem (and the eagle eyed may think there is an easement there) Ben On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 10:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: A note had been raised concerning mapping a Council access easement: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2883145#map=19/-27.50901/153.03017 Suggestion was made that these should be leisure=nature_reserve as it is not to be developed on? I suggested that they're just highway=footway + surface=grass, possibly with access=private if so signposted e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538670878 Alternative suggestion was landuse=easement? Have just done some searching &, strangely, there are basically no easements in OSM! https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=easement The 13 "easements" are all in Australia for gas pipelines: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gXr, while the 28 "easement_filed" are all in Florida for power lines: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gXs The only other mentions of easements are in the wiki for US Public Lands: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands, together with a brief mention in Massachusetts: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation So, how would we like to map these areas? 3 alternatives would seem to be nature_reserve / landuse or highway? Any other suggestions / thoughts? What do we all think? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Stéphane Guillou http://stragu.gitlab.io/ You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is available on the keys.gnupg.net server. Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page:http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
